On environment difficulty and discriminating power

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10458-014-9257-1This paper presents a way to estimate the difficulty and discriminating power of any task instance. We focus on a very general setting for tasks: interactive (possibly multiagent) environments where an agent acts upon observations and rewards. Instead of analysing the complexity of the environment, the state space or the actions that are performed by the agent, we analyse the performance of a population of agent policies against the task, leading to a distribution that is examined in terms of policy complexity. This distribution is then sliced by the algorithmic complexity of the policy and analysed through several diagrams and indicators. The notion of environment response curve is also introduced, by inverting the performance results into an ability scale. We apply all these concepts, diagrams and indicators to two illustrative problems: a class of agent-populated elementary cellular automata, showing how the difficulty and discriminating power may vary for several environments, and a multiagent system, where agents can become predators or preys, and may need to coordinate. Finally, we discuss how these tools can be applied to characterise (interactive) tasks and (multi-agent) environments. These characterisations can then be used to get more insight about agent performance and to facilitate the development of adaptive tests for the evaluation of agent abilities.I thank the reviewers for their comments, especially those aiming at a clearer connection with the field of multi-agent systems and the suggestion of better approximations for the calculation of the response curves. The implementation of the elementary cellular automata used in the environments is based on the library 'CellularAutomaton' by John Hughes for R [58]. I am grateful to Fernando Soler-Toscano for letting me know about their work [65] on the complexity of 2D objects generated by elementary cellular automata. I would also like to thank David L. Dowe for his comments on a previous version of this paper. This work was supported by the MEC/MINECO projects CONSOLIDER-INGENIO CSD2007-00022 and TIN 2010-21062-C02-02, GVA project PROMETEO/2008/051, the COST - European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research IC0801 AT, and the REFRAME project, granted by the European Coordinated Research on Long-term Challenges in Information and Communication Sciences & Technologies ERA-Net (CHIST-ERA), and funded by the Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad in Spain (PCIN-2013-037).José Hernández-Orallo (2015). On environment difficulty and discriminating power. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems. 29(3):402-454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-014-9257-1S402454293Anderson, J., Baltes, J., & Cheng, C. T. (2011). Robotics competitions as benchmarks for ai research. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 26(01), 11–17.Andre, D., & Russell, S. J. (2002). State abstraction for programmable reinforcement learning agents. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 119–125). Menlo Park, CA; Cambridge, MA; London; AAAI Press; MIT Press; 1999.Antunes, L., Fortnow, L., van Melkebeek, D., & Vinodchandran, N. V. (2006). Computational depth: Concept and applications. Theoretical Computer Science, 354(3), 391–404. Foundations of Computation Theory (FCT 2003), 14th Symposium on Fundamentals of Computation Theory 2003.Arai, K., Kaminka, G. A., Frank, I., & Tanaka-Ishii, K. (2003). Performance competitions as research infrastructure: Large scale comparative studies of multi-agent teams. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 7(1–2), 121–144.Ashcraft, M. H., Donley, R. D., Halas, M. A., & Vakali, M. (1992). Chapter 8 working memory, automaticity, and problem difficulty. In Jamie I.D. Campbell (Ed.), The nature and origins of mathematical skills, volume 91 of advances in psychology (pp. 301–329). North-Holland.Ay, N., Müller, M., & Szkola, A. (2010). Effective complexity and its relation to logical depth. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 56(9), 4593–4607.Barch, D. M., Braver, T. S., Nystrom, L. E., Forman, S. D., Noll, D. C., & Cohen, J. D. (1997). Dissociating working memory from task difficulty in human prefrontal cortex. Neuropsychologia, 35(10), 1373–1380.Bordini, R. H., Hübner, J. F., & Wooldridge, M. (2007). Programming multi-agent systems in AgentSpeak using Jason. London: Wiley. com.Boutilier, C., Reiter, R., Soutchanski, M., Thrun, S. et al. (2000). Decision-theoretic, high-level agent programming in the situation calculus. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 355–362). Menlo Park, CA; Cambridge, MA; London; AAAI Press; MIT Press; 1999.Busoniu, L., Babuska, R., & De Schutter, B. (2008). A comprehensive survey of multiagent reinforcement learning. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C: Applications and Reviews, 38(2), 156–172.Chaitin, G. J. (1977). Algorithmic information theory. IBM Journal of Research and Development, 21, 350–359.Chedid, F. B. (2010). Sophistication and logical depth revisited. In 2010 IEEE/ACS International Conference on Computer Systems and Applications (AICCSA) (pp. 1–4). IEEE.Cheeseman, P., Kanefsky, B. & Taylor, W. M. (1991). Where the really hard problems are. In Proceedings of IJCAI-1991 (pp. 331–337).Dastani, M. (2008). 2APL: A practical agent programming language. Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, 16(3), 214–248.Delahaye, J. P. & Zenil, H. (2011). Numerical evaluation of algorithmic complexity for short strings: A glance into the innermost structure of randomness. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 219(1), 63–77Dowe, D. L. (2008). Foreword re C. S. Wallace. Computer Journal, 51(5), 523–560. Christopher Stewart WALLACE (1933–2004) memorial special issue.Dowe, D. L., & Hernández-Orallo, J. (2012). IQ tests are not for machines, yet. Intelligence, 40(2), 77–81.Du, D. Z., & Ko, K. I. (2011). Theory of computational complexity (Vol. 58). London: Wiley-Interscience.Elo, A. E. (1978). The rating of chessplayers, past and present (Vol. 3). London: Batsford.Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Fatès, N. & Chevrier, V. (2010). How important are updating schemes in multi-agent systems? an illustration on a multi-turmite model. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems: volume 1-Volume 1 (pp. 533–540). International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.Ferber, J. & Müller, J. P. (1996). Influences and reaction: A model of situated multiagent systems. In Proceedings of Second International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS-96) (pp. 72–79).Ferrando, P. J. (2009). Difficulty, discrimination, and information indices in the linear factor analysis model for continuous item responses. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33(1), 9–24.Ferrando, P. J. (2012). Assessing the discriminating power of item and test scores in the linear factor-analysis model. Psicológica, 33, 111–139.Gent, I. P., & Walsh, T. (1994). Easy problems are sometimes hard. Artificial Intelligence, 70(1), 335–345.Gershenson, C. & Fernandez, N. (2012). Complexity and information: Measuring emergence, self-organization, and homeostasis at multiple scales. Complexity, 18(2), 29–44.Gruner, S. (2010). Mobile agent systems and cellular automata. Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, 20(2), 198–233.Hardman, D. K., & Payne, S. J. (1995). Problem difficulty and response format in syllogistic reasoning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48(4), 945–975.He, J., Reeves, C., Witt, C., & Yao, X. (2007). A note on problem difficulty measures in black-box optimization: Classification, realizations and predictability. Evolutionary Computation, 15(4), 435–443.Hernández-Orallo, J. (2000). Beyond the turing test. Journal of Logic Language & Information, 9(4), 447–466.Hernández-Orallo, J. (2000). On the computational measurement of intelligence factors. In A. Meystel (Ed.), Performance metrics for intelligent systems workshop (pp. 1–8). Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.Hernández-Orallo, J. (2000). Thesis: Computational measures of information gain and reinforcement in inference processes. AI Communications, 13(1), 49–50.Hernández-Orallo, J. (2010). A (hopefully) non-biased universal environment class for measuring intelligence of biological and artificial systems. In M. Hutter et al. (Ed.), 3rd International Conference on Artificial General Intelligence (pp. 182–183). Atlantis Press Extended report at http://users.dsic.upv.es/proy/anynt/unbiased.pdf .Hernández-Orallo, J., & Dowe, D. L. (2010). Measuring universal intelligence: Towards an anytime intelligence test. Artificial Intelligence, 174(18), 1508–1539.Hernández-Orallo, J., Dowe, D. L., España-Cubillo, S., Hernández-Lloreda, M. V., & Insa-Cabrera, J. (2011). On more realistic environment distributions for defining, evaluating and developing intelligence. In J. Schmidhuber, K. R. Thórisson, & M. Looks (Eds.), LNAI series on artificial general intelligence 2011 (Vol. 6830, pp. 82–91). Berlin: Springer.Hernández-Orallo, J., Dowe, D. L., & Hernández-Lloreda, M. V. (2014). Universal psychometrics: Measuring cognitive abilities in the machine kingdom. Cognitive Systems Research, 27, 50–74.Hernández-Orallo, J., Insa, J., Dowe, D. L. & Hibbard, B. (2012). Turing tests with turing machines. In A. Voronkov (Ed.), The Alan Turing Centenary Conference, Turing-100, Manchester, 2012, volume 10 of EPiC Series (pp. 140–156).Hernández-Orallo, J. & Minaya-Collado, N. (1998). A formal definition of intelligence based on an intensional variant of Kolmogorov complexity. In Proceedings of International Symposium of Engineering of Intelligent Systems (EIS’98) (pp. 146–163). ICSC Press.Hibbard, B. (2009). Bias and no free lunch in formal measures of intelligence. Journal of Artificial General Intelligence, 1(1), 54–61.Hoos, H. H. (1999). Sat-encodings, search space structure, and local search performance. In 1999 International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 16, pp. 296–303).Insa-Cabrera, J., Benacloch-Ayuso, J. L., & Hernández-Orallo, J. (2012). On measuring social intelligence: Experiments on competition and cooperation. In J. Bach, B. Goertzel, & M. Iklé (Eds.), AGI, volume 7716 of lecture notes in computer science (pp. 126–135). Berlin: Springer.Insa-Cabrera, J., Dowe, D. L., España-Cubillo, S., Hernández-Lloreda, M. V., & Hernández-Orallo, J. (2011). Comparing humans and AI agents. In J. Schmidhuber, K. R. Thórisson, & M. Looks (Eds.), LNAI series on artificial general intelligence 2011 (Vol. 6830, pp. 122–132). Berlin: Springer.Knuth, D. E. (1973). Sorting and searching, volume 3 of the art of computer programming. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Kotovsky, K., & Simon, H. A. (1990). What makes some problems really hard: Explorations in the problem space of difficulty. Cognitive Psychology, 22(2), 143–183.Legg, S. (2008). Machine super intelligence. PhD thesis, Department of Informatics, University of Lugano, June 2008.Legg, S., & Hutter, M. (2007). Universal intelligence: A definition of machine intelligence. Minds and Machines, 17(4), 391–444.Leonetti, M. & Iocchi, L. (2010). Improving the performance of complex agent plans through reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (Vol. 1, pp. 723–730). International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.Levin, L. A. (1973). Universal sequential search problems. Problems of Information Transmission, 9(3), 265–266.Levin, L. A. (1986). Average case complete problems. SIAM Journal on Computing, 15, 285.Li, M., & Vitányi, P. (2008). An introduction to Kolmogorov complexity and its applications (3rd ed.). Berlin: Springer.Low, C. K., Chen, T. Y., & Rónnquist, R. (1999). Automated test case generation for bdi agents. Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, 2(4), 311–332.Madden, M. G., & Howley, T. (2004). Transfer of experience between reinforcement learning environments with progressive difficulty. Artificial Intelligence Review, 21(3), 375–398.Mellenbergh, G. J. (1994). Generalized linear item response theory. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 300.Michel, F. (2004). Formalisme, outils et éléments méthodologiques pour la modélisation et la simulation multi-agents. PhD thesis, Université des sciences et techniques du Languedoc, Montpellier.Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81.Orponen, P., Ko, K. I., Schöning, U., & Watanabe, O. (1994). Instance complexity. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 41(1), 96–121.Simon, H. A., & Kotovsky, K. (1963). Human acquisition of concepts for sequential patterns. Psychological Review, 70(6), 534.Team, R., et al. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Whiteson, S., Tanner, B., & White, A. (2010). The reinforcement learning competitions. The AI Magazine, 31(2), 81–94.Wiering, M., & van Otterlo, M. (Eds.). (2012). Reinforcement learning: State-of-the-art. Berlin: Springer.Wolfram, S. (2002). A new kind of science. Champaign, IL: Wolfram Media.Zatuchna, Z., & Bagnall, A. (2009). Learning mazes with aliasing states: An LCS algorithm with associative perception. Adaptive Behavior, 17(1), 28–57.Zenil, H. (2010). Compression-based investigation of the dynamical properties of cellular automata and other systems. Complex Systems, 19(1), 1–28.Zenil, H. (2011). Une approche expérimentale à la théorie algorithmique de la complexité. PhD thesis, Dissertation in fulfilment of the degree of Doctor in Computer Science, Université de Lille.Zenil, H., Soler-Toscano, F., Delahaye, J. P. & Gauvrit, N. (2012). Two-dimensional kolmogorov complexity and validation of the coding theorem method by compressibility. arXiv, preprint arXiv:1212.6745

On the convergence of autonomous agent communities

This is the post-print version of the final published paper that is available from the link below. Copyright @ 2010 IOS Press and the authors.Community is a common phenomenon in natural ecosystems, human societies as well as artificial multi-agent systems such as those in web and Internet based applications. In many self-organizing systems, communities are formed evolutionarily in a decentralized way through agents' autonomous behavior. This paper systematically investigates the properties of a variety of the self-organizing agent community systems by a formal qualitative approach and a quantitative experimental approach. The qualitative formal study by applying formal specification in SLABS and Scenario Calculus has proven that mature and optimal communities always form and become stable when agents behave based on the collective knowledge of the communities, whereas community formation does not always reach maturity and optimality if agents behave solely based on individual knowledge, and the communities are not always stable even if such a formation is achieved. The quantitative experimental study by simulation has shown that the convergence time of agent communities depends on several parameters of the system in certain complicated patterns, including the number of agents, the number of community organizers, the number of knowledge categories, and the size of the knowledge in each category

Multi-level agent-based modeling - A literature survey

During last decade, multi-level agent-based modeling has received significant and dramatically increasing interest. In this article we present a comprehensive and structured review of literature on the subject. We present the main theoretical contributions and application domains of this concept, with an emphasis on social, flow, biological and biomedical models.Comment: v2. Ref 102 added. v3-4 Many refs and text added v5-6 bibliographic statistics updated. v7 Change of the name of the paper to reflect what it became, many refs and text added, bibliographic statistics update

Evaluating how agent methodologies support the specification of the normative environment through the development process

[EN] Due to the increase in collaborative work and the decentralization of processes in many domains, there is an expanding demand for large-scale, flexible and adaptive software systems to support the interactions of people and institutions distributed in heterogeneous environments. Commonly, these software applications should follow specific regulations meaning the actors using them are bound by rights, duties and restrictions. Since this normative environment determines the final design of the software system, it should be considered as an important issue during the design of the system. Some agent-oriented software engineering methodologies deal with the development of normative systems (systems that have a normative environment) by integrating the analysis of the normative environment of a system in the development process. This paper analyses to what extent these methodologies support the analysis and formalisation of the normative environment and highlights some open issues of the topic.This work is partially supported by the PROMETEOII/2013/019, TIN2012-36586-C03-01, FP7-29493, TIN2011-27652-C03-00, CSD2007-00022 projects, and the CASES project within the 7th European Community Framework Program under the grant agreement No 294931.Garcia Marques, ME.; Miles, S.; Luck, M.; Giret Boggino, AS. (2014). Evaluating how agent methodologies support the specification of the normative environment through the development process. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems. 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-014-9275-zS120Cossentino, M., Hilaire, V., Molesini, A., & Seidita, V. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook on agent-oriented design processes (Vol. VIII, 569 p. 508 illus.). Berlin: Springer.Akbari, O. (2010). A survey of agent-oriented software engineering paradigm: Towards its industrial acceptance. Journal of Computer Engineering Research, 1, 14–28.Argente, E., Botti, V., Carrascosa, C., Giret, A., Julian, V., & Rebollo, M. (2011). An abstract architecture for virtual organizations: The THOMAS approach. Knowledge and Information Systems, 29(2), 379–403.Argente, E., Botti, V., & Julian, V. (2009). GORMAS: An organizational-oriented methodological guideline for open MAS. In Proceedings of AOSE’09 (pp. 440–449).Argente, E., Botti, V., & Julian, V. (2009). Organizational-oriented methodological guidelines for designing virtual organizations. In Distributed computing, artificial intelligence, bioinformatics, soft computing, and ambient assisted living. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 5518, pp. 154–162).Boella, G., Pigozzi, G., & van der Torre, L. (2009). Normative systems in computer science—Ten guidelines for normative multiagent systems. In G. Boella, P. Noriega, G. Pigozzi, & H. Verhagen (Eds.), Normative multi-agent systems, number 09121 in Dagstuhl seminar proceedings.Boella, G., Torre, L., & Verhagen, H. (2006). Introduction to normative multiagent systems. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 12(2–3), 71–79.Bogdanovych, A., Esteva, M., Simoff, S., Sierra, C., & Berger, H. (2008). A methodology for developing multiagent systems as 3d electronic institutions. In M. Luck & L. Padgham (Eds.), Agent-Oriented Software Engineering VIII (Vol. 4951, pp. 103–117). Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin: Springer.Boissier, O., Padget, J., Dignum, V., Lindemann, G., Matson, E., Ossowski, S., Sichman, J., & Vazquez-Salceda, J. (2006). Coordination, organizations, institutions and norms in multi-agent systems. LNCS (LNAI) (Vol. 3913).Bordini, R. H., Fisher, M., Visser, W., & Wooldridge, M. (2006). Verifying multi-agent programs by model checking. In Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (Vol. 12, pp. 239–256). Hingham, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Botti, V., Garrido, A., Giret, A., & Noriega, P. (2011). The role of MAS as a decision support tool in a water-rights market. In Post-proceedings workshops AAMAS2011 (Vol. 7068, pp. 35–49). Berlin: Springer.Breaux, T. (2009). Exercising due diligence in legal requirements acquisition: A tool-supported, frame-based approach. In Proceedings of the IEEE international requirements engineering conference (pp. 225–230).Breaux, T. D., & Baumer, D. L. (2011). Legally reasonable security requirements: A 10-year ftc retrospective. Computers and Security, 30(4), 178–193.Breaux, T. D., Vail, M. W., & Anton, A. I. (2006). Towards regulatory compliance: Extracting rights and obligations to align requirements with regulations. In Proceedings of the 14th IEEE international requirements engineering conference, RE ’06 (pp. 46–55). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.Bresciani, P., Perini, A., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., & Mylopoulos, J. (2004). Tropos: An agent-oriented software development methodology. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 8(3), 203–236.Cardoso, H. L., & Oliveira, E. (2008). A contract model for electronic institutions. In COIN’07: Proceedings of the 2007 international conference on Coordination, organizations, institutions, and norms in agent systems III (pp. 27–40).Castor, A., Pinto, R. C., Silva, C. T. L. L., & Castro, J. (2004). Towards requirement traceability in tropos. In WER (pp. 189–200).Chopra, A., Dalpiaz, F., Giorgini, P., & Mylopoulos, J. (2009). Modeling and reasoning about service-oriented applications via goals and commitments. ICST conference on digital business.Cliffe, O., Vos, M., & Padget, J. (2006). Specifying and analysing agent-based social institutions using answer set programming. In O. Boissier, J. Padget, V. Dignum, G. Lindemann, E. Matson, S. Ossowski, J. Sichman, & J. Vázquez-Salceda (Eds.), Coordination, organizations, institutions, and norms in multi-agent systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 3913, pp. 99–113). Springer. Berlin.Criado, N., Argente, E., Garrido, A., Gimeno, J. A., Igual, F., Botti, V., Noriega, P., & Giret, A. (2011). Norm enforceability in Electronic Institutions? In Coordination, organizations, institutions, and norms in agent systems VI (Vol. 6541, pp. 250–267). Springer.Dellarocas, C., & Klein, M. (2001). Contractual agent societies. In R. Conte & C. Dellarocas (Eds.), Social order in multiagent systems (Vol. 2, pp. 113–133)., Multiagent Systems, Artificial Societies, and Simulated Organizations New York: Springer.DeLoach, S. A. (2008). Developing a multiagent conference management system using the o-mase process framework. In Proceedings of the international conference on agent-oriented software engineering VIII (pp. 168–181).DeLoach, S. A., & Garcia-Ojeda, J. C. (2010). O-mase; a customisable approach to designing and building complex, adaptive multi-agent systems. International Journal of Agent-Oriented Software Engineering, 4(3), 244–280.DeLoach, S. A., Padgham, L., Perini, A., Susi, A., & Thangarajah, J. (2009). Using three aose toolkits to develop a sample design. International Journal Agent-Oriented Software Engineering, 3, 416–476.Dignum, F., Dignum, V., Thangarajah, J., Padgham, L., & Winikoff, M. (2007). Open agent systems? Eighth international workshop on agent oriented software engineering (AOSE) in AAMAS07.Dignum, V. (2003). A model for organizational interaction:based on agents, founded in logic. PhD thesis, Utrecht University.Dignum, V., Meyer, J., Dignum, F., & Weigand, H. (2003). Formal specification of interaction in agent societies. Formal approaches to agent-based systems (Vol. 2699).Dignum, V., Vazquez-Salceda, J., & Dignum, F. (2005). Omni: Introducing social structure, norms and ontologies into agent organizations. In R. Bordini, M. Dastani, J. Dix, & A. Seghrouchni (Eds.)Programming multi-agent systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 3346, pp. 181–198). Berlin: Springer.d’Inverno, M., Luck, M., Noriega, P., Rodriguez-Aguilar, J., & Sierra, C. (2012). Communicating open systems, 186, 38–94.Elsenbroich, C., & Gilbert, N. (2014). Agent-based modelling. In Modelling norms (pp. 65–84). Dordrecht: Springer.Esteva, M., Rosell, B., Rodriguez, J. A., & Arcos, J. L. (2004). AMELI: An agent-based middleware for electronic institutions. In AAMAS04 (pp. 236–243).Fenech, S., Pace, G. J., & Schneider, G. (2009). Automatic conflict detection on contracts. In Proceedings of the 6th international colloquium on theoretical aspects of computing, ICTAC ’09 (pp. 200–214).Garbay, C., Badeig, F., & Caelen, J. (2012). Normative multi-agent approach to support collaborative work in distributed tangible environments. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on computer supported cooperative work companion, CSCW ’12 (pp. 83–86). New York, NY: ACM.Garcia, E., Giret, A., & Botti, V. (2011). Regulated open multi-agent systems based on contracts. In Information Systems Development (pp. 243–255).Garcia, E., Tyson, G., Miles, S., Luck, M., Taweel, A., Staa, T. V., & Delaney, B. (2012). An analysis of agent-oriented engineering of e-health systems. In 13th international eorkshop on sgent-oriented software engineering (AOSE-AAMAS).Garcia, E., Tyson, G., Miles, S., Luck, M., Taweel, A., Staa, T. V., and Delaney, B. (2013). Analysing the Suitability of Multiagent Methodologies for e-Health Systems. In Agent-Oriented Software Engineering XIII, volume 7852, pages 134–150. Springer-Verlag.Garrido, A., Giret, A., Botti, V., & Noriega, P. (2013). mWater, a case study for modeling virtual markets. In New perspectives on agreement technologies (Vol. Law, Gover, pp. 563–579). Springer.Gteau, B., Boissier, O., & Khadraoui, D. (2006). Multi-agent-based support for electronic contracting in virtual enterprises. IFAC Symposium on Information Control Problems in Manufacturing (INCOM), 150(3), 73–91.Hollander, C. D., & Wu, A. S. (2011). The current state of normative agent-based systems. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 14(2), 6.Hsieh, F.-S. (2005). Automated negotiation based on contract net and petri net. In E-commerce and web technologies. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 3590, pp. 148–157).Kollingbaum, M., Jureta, I. J., Vasconcelos, W., & Sycara, K. (2008). Automated requirements-driven definition of norms for the regulation of behavior in multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of the AISB 2008 workshop on behaviour regulation in multi-agent systems, Aberdeen, Scotland, U.K., April 2008.Li, T., Balke, T., Vos, M., Satoh, K., & Padget, J. (2013). Detecting conflicts in legal systems. In Y. Motomura, A. Butler, & D. Bekki (Eds.), New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 7856, pp. 174–189)., Lecture Notes in Computer Science Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.Lomuscio, A., Qu, H., & Solanki, M. (2010) Towards verifying contract regulated service composition. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (pp. 1–29).Lopez, F., Luck, M., & d’Inverno, M. (2006). A normative framework for agent-based systems. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 12, 227–250.Lpez, F. y, Luck, M., & dInverno, M. (2006). A normative framework for agent-based systems. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 12(2–3), 227–250.Mader, P., & Egyed, A. (2012). Assessing the effect of requirements traceability for software maintenance. In 28th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM) (pp. 171–180), Sept 2012.Mao, X., & Yu, E. (2005). Organizational and social concepts in agent oriented software engineering. In AOSE IV. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 3382, pp. 184–202).Meyer, J.-J. C., & Wieringa, R. J. (Eds.). (1993). Deontic logic in computer science: Normative system specification. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Okouya, D., & Dignum, V. (2008). Operetta: A prototype tool for the design, analysis and development of multi-agent organizations (demo paper). In AAMAS (pp. 1667–1678).Malone, T. W., Smith J. B., & Olson, G. M. (2001). Coordination theory and collaboration technology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Oren, N., Panagiotidi, S., Vázquez-Salceda, J., Modgil, S., Luck, M., & Miles, S. (2009). Towards a formalisation of electronic contracting environments. COIN (pp. 156–171).Osman, N., Robertson, D., & Walton, C. (2006). Run-time model checking of interaction and deontic models for multi-agent systems. In AAMAS ’06: Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems (pp. 238–240). New York, NY: ACM.Pace, G., Prisacariu, C., & Schneider, G. (2007). Model checking contracts a case study. In Automated technology for verification and analysis. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 4762, pp. 82–97).Rotolo, A., & van der Torre, L. (2011). Rules, agents and norms: Guidelines for rule-based normative multi-agent systems. RuleML Europe, 6826, 52–66.Saeki, M., & Kaiya, H. (2008). Supporting the elicitation of requirements compliant with regulations. In CAiSE ’08 (pp. 228–242).Siena, A., Mylopoulos, J., Perini, A., & Susi, A. (2009). Designing law-compliant software requirements. In Proceedings of the 28th international conference on conceptual modeling, ER ’09 (pp. 472–486).Singh, M. P. Commitments in multiagent systems: Some history, some confusions, some controversies, some prospects.Solaiman, E., Molina-Jimenez, C., & Shrivastav, S. (2003). Model checking correctness properties of electronic contracts. In Service-oriented computing—ICSOC 2003. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 2910, pp. 303–318). Berlin: Springer.Telang, P. R., & Singh, M. P. (2009). Conceptual modeling: Foundations and applications. Enhancing tropos with commitments (pp. 417–435).Vázquez-Salceda, J., Confalonieri, R., Gomez, I., Storms, P., Nick Kuijpers, S. P., & Alvarez, S. (2009). Modelling contractually-bounded interactions in the car insurance domain. DIGIBIZ 2009.Viganò, F., & Colombetti, M. (2007). Symbolic model checking of institutions. In ICEC (pp. 35–44).Walton, C. D. (2007). Verifiable agent dialogues. Journal of Applied Logic, 5(2):197–213, Logic-Based Agent Verification.Winkler, S., & Pilgrim, J. (2010). A survey of traceability in requirements engineering and model-driven development. Software and Systems Modeling (SoSyM), 9(4), 529–565.Wooldridge, M., Fisher, M., Huget, M., & Parsons, S. (2002). Model checking multi-agent systems with mable. In AAMAS02 (pp. 952–959). ACM